Looks like WI will be 100% in state people thie year.

What is up with some people still not committed? I thought all commitments had to be in by Sunday 11th? Pretty lame that some are holding out till the last minute. Yet another reason that i think the IFPA sound require people to pre-commit to a state or order of states by mid Dec. Lots of these guys appear to be waiting till the last minute so they can see who is doing each state.

Also woudl be good if IFPA did not publish any commitments untill the entire field is set.

WI host is also competiting (top qualifier) and I think he deserves any advantage he gets since he is imviting us all into his home.

I actually find that often hosting and playing is very tough.

NGG is not really a competitive bug is it? It is not random if in tourney mode, so to me it is just pinball. If your strategy is to bash the cart then go for it. You still have to have the skill to do it.

It is 2-fold.

1 is out of respect for people on the bubble and that care about making their home state SCS. I find it very disrespectful for those that know they will be attending, are actually qualified for multiple states, and want to wait and be the last person to declare. This keeps others waiting in limbo when it could all easily be resolved already. Even outside of whom will be playing, many states are held up on final first round match ups because of a select few people.

2 is that we were told decision had to be made by Sunday the 11th and now the deadline for some states is later. At the same time it appears that IFPA then opted to publish the declared spots mid way through. It was not stated up front that if you declare it would automatically be published for others to see. Seems like the best practice would be to require all declarations in advance of publishing any. Current model affords a potential strategic advantage to some without the knowledge that deciding early (out of respect for others and the tourney director) would possibly be used against you.

Josh, any reason not to keep those declared 'blind' until after the deadline?

Seems silly to me to do it this way. While it was the same last year, not everyone involved this year was involved last year and the current way feels cheap to some from feedback I have heard, esp when it was not published to be done this way in advance.

Next year I would just lobby locally for nobody to submit till the last minute, but honestly I still find that to be pretty dickish for anyone on the bubble to have to wait it out when players already know where they will declare. Also kind of a hassle for directors to possibly field multiple emails from players while they flip flop decisions.

It all seems like it could be much more fun and clearly laid out if people just auto-updated IFPA profiles with order of states choosen to play in for SCS. For example, I would declare WI, but if I did not qualify for WI then X, if not X then Y. It would be really cool for players to be able to see where they stand more accurately by oct/nov time frame and as then hunt points for the SCS they want to most play in.

Next year you can just email me your intent on day 1 of declarations and then I will vouch that you did not change your decision. Then you can keep it blind for all and it will be fair.

That is a silly analogy and not even comparable.

Keep in mind the intent of the SCS is to promote competitive pinball within the state. Waiting 120 seconds for a plumb bob to settle is smart pinball.

I would say letting a few edited>People< string along those still getting into the sport and possibly on the bubble in their home state due to these toolbags playing the waiting game (when they already know where they are planning to play) is very disrespectful to the comraderie some of us are helping to build with the sport on a state level.

Josh, I really do think that if the central tenant is to use the SCS to continue to build on a state level then there should be a new rule for 2015 and program the system so people that are playing for the SCS (know how it works from previous years) must pre-declare state X then Y then Z. This would allow people to get a good feel for where they stand in their state come mid Oct (in some states, much earlier). Just make it a rule that all SCS players must declare 3 state intent by Oct 31st and you will make a huge postive change in the state level of competition. If the central tenant is to still cater to the few high end players and seed the national pot then I can see where the focus to make positive changes for the people I talk about takes low priority.

You have a ton of data at your fingertips and tons of emails if you want to blast out to the top 50 in each state with a fluid survey to get their opinions. I can tell you with a resounding YES that the guys I see having fun and building the sport in WI would like to see the change made.

Only a select few are being drama fueled self important hold outs. these are the guys that qualified in multiple states but have waited till last night or today to declare even though they have known for months where they would be playing. I am friends with some of these toolbags and giving them shit for holding out in announcing their decisions so late. Sure it is within the rules but they are still being donkeys. Sorry if that is lost in text. They are all great guys but I am still gonna give them a hard time and call them out when the pull crap like this. I appologize if any of you donkeys took offense, this was intended ribbing for the few donkeys I know personally and we already have fun giving each other a hard time.

You are correct that I should not construe the good suggestions with also giving these guys a hard time.

see below for clear message with non-PC removed.

"Josh, I really do think that if the central tenant is to use the SCS to continue to build on a state level then there should be a new rule for 2015 and program the system so people that are playing for the SCS (know how it works from previous years) must pre-declare state X then Y then Z. This would allow people to get a good feel for where they stand in their state come mid Oct (in some states, much earlier). Just make it a rule that all SCS players must declare 3 state intent by Oct 31st and you will make a huge postive change in the state level of competition. If the central tenant is to still cater to the few high end players and seed the national pot then I can see where the focus to make positive changes for the people I talk about takes low priority.

You have a ton of data at your fingertips and tons of emails if you want to blast out to the top 50 in each state with a fluid survey to get their opinions. I can tell you with a resounding YES that the guys I see having fun and building the sport in WI would like to see the change made.
"

true, play better is always an answer.

However, my point has nothing to do with in or out of state. My point is that the SCS could improve/grow interest by having people declare intent of SCS earlier in order to field the top 16. This would remove the added drama of some that are waiting till the last minute to declare but more importantly I think will help to grow the sport on the state level by allowing those in each specific state to have a better knowledge of where they stand throughout the year.

For example if you are in a state that has gone 80 deep and come October you are 82nd then you will possibly put in a little more effort to attend another event in the state before the year is over.

You can also take WI for example (or any state within close travel distance to a core group of really great players: IL) which thankfully gets lots of support from players that come in and play in our big events but also many have zero intent of ever playing in WI SCS. WI SCS appears that it will go to 27th place to field the top 16 this year. Of the guys in the top 27, I know of 5 that committed before the year even started that they would not play in WI unless they did not qualify in their home state. Seems to me like shifting to having everyone declare order of SCS preference for 2015 now would be good for the growth of the SCS in general. I do know a few guys sitting 28-50th in WI for 2014 that may have played a bit more at the end of the year if they had known WI was going to go 27 deep to create the field.

As of now I see zero postitives from the current plan of allowing people to wait till Jan 13th to declare and on the flip side I see lots of postential positive by requiring all current compeitiors to declare in advance for 2015. You of course will need a rule to allow those that just get more into the SCS thing this year to declare by a later cutoff date, but I think that can be managed. Also seems liek this could be a relatively simple addition to current IFPA where each player can go into their profile and declare top 3 choices/commitments for SCS. Then everyone else can do the figuring in their head as the year goes on. That is good drama and also woudl add alot of fun to the sport and hunt for SCS spots.

Josh, I understand your points but think all 1, 2, and 3 are things that are inportant to a FEW and the majority of SCS participants place higher value on their home state.

I really think you have a simple ability to blast out a non-biased fluid survey to the top 50-100 in all participating states and see what the majority consensus is. I think you are still looking at things from a vastly different perspective than the majority of your clients/participants. The SCS is simpley GREAT and I think one of the best things going in pinball, but I also think there is room for improvement. Your provided POV really only even factors in for the handful of people that were qualified in multiple states, which seems pretty small in relation to all others.

A bit more specific in regards to some of the points you made, I think as things continue to get more organized in each state then #1 will be taken care of. For example, WI SCS 2015 will be held in Madison area, 2016 in MKE area, 2017 in appleton area. We have already established a general plan and potential host list which allows rotation of geograpic location of the event each year, so assuming other states will hopefully get more organized then I think this should by and large become a moot point. At the same time, only a select few even qualified for multiple states that are actually undecided untill they know location.

#2 Game list is not freely published so this is something that is obviously being used as a strategy by those in the know. Probably best practice to require hosts to publish all potential game lists in advance if you want to be fair with this knowledge and strategy for all. I understand this desire to know before choosing by some players but again think the vast majority don't put this high on their decision tree.

#3 if players can see seed position and how it adjusts during the year then I woudl say it lends MORE fun to the SCS and not less. This is actually an argument in favor of earlier declaration.

I hope you choose to use some of the great data you have compiled and reach out to survey for opinions from the guys in the hunt for each SCS and see what they could be saying. I may be completely in left field with this but based on what I am hearing from the growing population of WI based players, I have presented some big positives for what they would like to see for improvements.

My impression is that very few SCS players actually hang out on pinside with any regularity. Of the top 50 WI players only a fraction is on pinside regularly and even fewer comment in the forums.

I am pretty sure that often misconstrue my desire to grow the sport of competitive pinball in WI as 'worked up' in text. Just laying out some ideas and having fun.

If you don't care about SCS stuff then why are you in this thread?

Please keep in mind that the "guy who runs the show" is in reality the "people" that run all the shows. There is a large contingent of people throughout the world now that choose to put in countless hours and energy organizing and running thousands of events each year for the betterment of the sport and the FUN of all involved. What you call 'worked up' comes off as an insult and makes a passion for pinball and interest in running events sound shallow, esp when I have a vested interest in improving the sport and the SCS in particular.

I am sorry to Josh if you felt my responses were Badgering and I hope we know each other well enough by now to know we both have the same common desires to build the sport and support pinball playing and competing. I have nothing but the utmost respect for what you have done with the IFPA and the great growth that competitive pinball is having! My opinions and ideas are all couched in a desire to make things better and continue the positive trajectory.

I hope you can see that how this motivation of a few could possibly be holding back the positive growth and dampen the perspective of many others. At some point I have to think there is a greater good where the growth of the sport and SCS for the majority needs to be factored in. Lots of differnet motives from those playing as you ahve pointed out, but which motives shoudl be cattered to?

I like how it is always an 'agenda' when there is a new idea but not when a select few are stacking the deck...

I have heard lots of reasons why it would be a hassle and lots of reasons why the top players deserve or earn the right, but not much in the way of actual discussion of new ways to improve and grow the SCS or cater to the base.

It is not much of a discussion if the only point some of you can make is that this is good enough and that there is no room for improvement. If that were the case then we would not have the new points rules for 2015.

I also support anyone playing wherever they qualify. I do not think it is the best thing for the continueed growth of the SCS, but those are the current rules and they have allowance for many people to follow their motives of the potential easiest path to Nationals and prize money.

I do think that largely the new points rules for 2015 will be a pretty big change already and be abig improvement after they all shake out. That said, I still think it would be way more fun to have a better idea of actual standing in SCS late in the year when you can still have an impact on your final position.

Currently the SCS is set up in a way that allows the best players to choose what state they want to go through on their road to the nationals (assuming they are qualified in many states) and they don't need to declare this intent until the last possible minute on Jan 13th 2015 for all the events that were played during the 2014 season. Since the IFPA shows all current declarations up to this point a player that is potentially qualified in multiple states can choose today what they percieve to be the easiest route to nationals, after evaluation whom else is playing in each state, using insider info to figure out games, etc...

As Josh pointed out, for some players their main motive is making nationals (1st place in SCS for each state) and then winning the big prize (4k?) money at nationals. The current rules are set up in the favor of someone that this is their primary motive and by witholding declarations until this time they have kept the growing competitive base which may be on the bubble in a particular state, waiting in limbo. This player is stacking the deck (within the rules) in their favor (or percieved favor). I am not blaming these people for doing it (but will heckle them) but this is where I see room for improvement in the current SCS. I would say only a select few people have this prize money at nationals reason as their main motive for playing in a particular SCS, but this choice can directly impact the SCS and motives of many of the other players (those that are motivate to just try and qualify or just win the state event).

Keep in mind that the SCS is something created to help promote competitive play on the state/regional level and in my opinion there is more to be gained by tweaking the SCS to cater to better competition among regular competitiors in the state and whom I would call the base of the SCS. At the same time all SCS top 16 are putting in cash that funnels up to the national event and seeds the prize pool, so there is obviously incentive to pick and choose with as much info as possible so top players have the baest chance of leveraging the SCS into helping offset national travel costs and winning the cash prize. Simply making declarations blind untill all states are done with filling the field would be a big improvement to keep those that are stacking the deck from picking and choosing based on whom else is competing in a specific state.

Making a further change for earlier declaration requirement could possibly improve the overall impact of the SCS and IMHO would make SCS way more fun as you hunt points later in the year and current SCS position has more accuracy of where you will end up!

fylnn > I appologized for bashing for those choosing to use the rules to the best of their ability and attempted to redirect back to positive and structured reasons for improvements.

sorry if I kicked it off on the wrong foot. my smack talking was really in jest at a few select people that I know and have been shit talking via real life also, but I can see how it would easily be taken as a general bash on all people. My apologies if you are in the offended group.

I agree that delayed declaration is minor in the grand scheme but it is a nice stopoff to examine potential improvements for future years.

That is great stuff!

Thanks for running your states event! Seriously!

Did not see his post till now...

THANKS to ALL HOSTS and Officials for running your states SCS. Without you guys, none of this would ever happen!

Instead of statehood being the main factor of where you play, since distance of SCS and obviously where you live/play can be a factor, I could see "if you qualify in whatever state you played the most events, then that is where you are forced to play for SCS" as being a fair way.

While eveyone earns the right to currently play wherever they qualify, I see this as a potential big improvement and something that could be a compromise to remove some of the current concerns.

If someone lives in southern WI and plays the majority of their annual events in northern IL and they qualify in IL, then it would seem like a logical criterion that they play in the IL SCS, even though they reside in WI.

In other words, "play SCS where you play your most competitive pinball".

I don't buy the "too far to travel in my own state for SCS" arguement. Many of the top players travel what I think are crazy distances every month to play in big events all over the world. If the WI SCS is 6 hours away in tippy top WI I have no problem making the drive. I am guessing many people have traveled a similar distance during the year to play in previous events???

Maybe in bigger states with multiple population centers of players, like CA? I can see travel being an issue even within a state. However, in most cases this would seem to provide more incentive to make more events and host more competitions, only further growing the sport. Maybe making some sort of agreement that the SCS travels to a new region each year?

I will say that I think if the SCS was the end of the line and nationals was not part of SCS then you would change the incentive for many and people would end up playing where they normally play anyway rather than looking for the easiest road to nationals. I know I personally don't ever like to pay into an event that is largely seeding the pot for yet another event which does require large amounts of travel. I know even if I were to win WI SCS I will not ever spend the time/energy traveling to nationals. I would prefer 100% of my SCS entry fee goes to WI SCS. IF the winner of WI SCS wants to go to nationals, then give them the option of paying to enter nationals rather than seeding a bigger pot from a state that may not send a player based on travel and associated costs.

Just wanted to say you had better start playing better/more in WI then, as you did not make the cut this year

Also, yes it is pretty counter "build the local competitive scene with SCS" IMHO to use ANY SCS funds for nationals pot. Especially when going to nationals actually forces extensive and costly travel on most and there is no choice for some people as this is both cost and time prohibitive. This is exactly the same excuse/ reason for making it easy on SCS yet forcing SCS dollars to seed the national pool is poor form. I think there are plenty of other national events to focus the energy on. Let the SCS be what it is and stand/grow on its own merits. If there is not enough interest in SCS winners to travel to a national event then that is telling on its own and shows a underlying motive beyond 'incentivizing' the national event.

How many people or what % of SCS states were represented at last years national?

Agreed and the BEST way to do that is on the local level first!

Much better than I thought. Still don't care for the SCS $ seeding aspect but nice to see the that majority of people were in attendance. What makes you say >>>

With so many in attendance last year I am guessing a $100 entry fee would be small relative to the amount they each spent on flights, hotel, etc... and is not a barrier to participation.

I don't think your logic of "it did not scare off people from paying to get into SCS because they are gifting a portion of their entry to a top national person" is a great way to continue building the sport.

With 25/28 attending last year, it seems like a no brainer to just let each state winner choose if he wants to travel and give up his/her winnings to pay a $100 entry for nationals.

The way you say it, It honestly feels more like the reality is that 'top players will enjoy winning a bigger gaurenteed prize pool at nationals' so a good way to build that prize pool is with seed money from each state. This is the sort of thing that makes me want to run an entirely seperate State Event each year where all money goes to winners and give them the choice of travel or not to travel (just like you want to give the choice for SCS).

Using the desire of a local state player to field the top 16 in a state and then forcing the choice of "you can pay to seed nationals or just don't come to SCS" is a pretty shitty thing to say to someone that enjoys competing on a regional level IMO.

Your gig, your choice.

I am glad my donation to the national event can help support you (assuming you make it and win).

I don't support what you are doing in this case, but when my options are to pay $20 to go hang out with my friends and have a fun day of competition or not..., then I will pay the $20 despite $100 from the winner being taken without their choice to support you and your buddies.

I will be looking at alternatives in the future and seeing what other players in the state value as that is whom I prefer to support. If they prefer we start crowning a real WI state champ with better prizes and more cash payout, instead of giving you and your buddies a portion of our prize pool then that is always an alternative worth looking in to.

DNO, you don't currently have a "choice" if you are seeding to the national pot. That would be nice if each SCS winner had a choice of what to do with their winnings.

I think the "WI state Championship" is more appropriate since it would be crowning the real WI state annual champ and be handing out more/better prizes and awarding 100% of prize pool money to winners in WI rather than a national event that will likely cost a thousand+ for some to attend.

This is a FANTASTIC idea or maybe even better would be to rotate the national event among the major shows in the US?

Year 1 > TPF, Year 2> MGC, Year>3 Allentown, etc...

I am sure you could find volunteers to help run the event at each of these shows. Granted this means that the national championship happens at a different time each year, but that would be a nice arrangement for those that have limited time or ability to travel for pinball and an actual COMPROMISE with all the players that support the SCS and the directors that host and support IFPA events throughout the year.

Josh,

Another good COMPROMISE I can think of concerning the forced SCS money seed to nationals would be to continue down the line for each state till you find someone that wants to go to nationals. If 1 and 2 can't/don't want to go, then why not allow 3 or 4 or 5 or... in the state attend? Since the state will have already been forced to pay the entry for their representative, then only seems fair to allow each state to at least fill that slot.

What would be the harm in that?

Similar thing happened with our madison FWTG. I think we would need to go 5 deep before someone is able to make it to vegas that weekend and that person has expressed interest in attending. I can see similar circumstances for nationals.

"make them pay, then allow them to play"

This tells me that there is obviously no real potential for any compromise/discussion and your motivation is squarely aligned with the national event you are running and how you can make it more lucrative and easy to attend for the select few (apparently you, your brother, and Trent being the main people you are concerned about).

I really do think it is unfortunate that your personal motives are weighing heavily on how you attempt to grow the sport without looking to some of your active state based people for input and advice on what their motives are and how to compromise and find something that will grow the sport without the main concern only being to support the bank accounts of the few based on the donation of the many. I do really feel you have put the horse in front of the cart on this particular one.

In discussions with the top 16 in WI and about 50/50 split on those that agree with my points and others have mainly said they do not agree with mandatory donation to nationals but they are willing to pay into national pot because they enjoy the state competition. So far only 1 has said he supports seeding the national pool.

So far the majority said they would support an annual state event which pays out 100% to those players over the current model of seeding the national event with ~30% of our prize pool.

So far only 2 WI players plan to attend nationals if they win. 1 because he is already in vegas for another reason and other because he wants the opportunity to play some of the best in the world.

Just want to make sure I am clear that based on feedback from the 16 that choose WI it could more accurately be stated as they are choosing to support the SCS "despite" the current structure.

I am still waiting on opinions from some of the people I have reached out to survey, but so far the majority response is that they want to support the local event despite the current national payment/structure.

Hey Josh, as an alternative to seeding national with SCS money, have you ever thought of charging a one time or annual fee for people to use the services of the IFPA?

I would be happy to pay a $10 fee to have my tournaments tracked like they already are. This is pretty common in other sports as I understand.

Just think of all the cash you could bring in and seed the national pot with if you did this.

Something like, in order to be eligible for any SCS event you must be an active member of the IFPA with annual dues paid by June 1st of each year.

I am guessing literally thousands of pinheads would be happy to pay in $10. Talk about a huge national prize seeding.

I would assume you would still be tracking everyone like you do, just making it a requirement to play in the SCS that you are paid in full of annual dues by mid-year. You could of course make a rule for people that have played their first event ever in this year, that they would need to pay in by Dec 1st or something more reasonable/later in the year.

I would say paying an annual membership is much more palatable to me than the current seeding model (forcing the hand of a mid tier player like me that qualified for SCS and wants to play with locals only, feels way more biased that offering a membership to all people that want the opportunity to have scores tracked for SCS purposes) . I think the IFPA does some really cool things (and alot of tracking work!) for me as a player already and I would be fine paying a small annual fee to support this. Maybe make some added data or a few more analytics available to those that are paying/card carrying members of the IFPA. That would help with the perception that people are getting something new for their membership.

I only bring this up as a suggestion again because now 6 people in WI from this years top 16 have said things to the effect of "I don't like the current national seeding structure, but just think of this as an annual membership fee for them maintaining my profile" in the email poll I sent out. Knowing the local WI players pretty well, I think you would probably get the top 50 players that would be happy to pay in an annual membership fee with very little concern > just a rough guess. I am guessing that number would grow each year, but even at onset that would be 5x the seeded prize pool of the current design.

I don't really see this fracturing the player base, because we get quite a bit of cool stuff from IFPA system already.

That is really interesting to me. So the top 16 have no issue paying extra to play in SCS now but would not pay in advance (and I assume less for the SCS then) for more tracking of scores and to be eligible for the same event?

I don't expect any tournament director/host to try and gather emails or sell anyone. That is the job of the IFPA.

I am suggesting the IFPA make a new requirement that IF anyone wants to participate in SCS and they are already have a profile with IFPA then they are required to pay an annual membership fee of $10 by X date. If they have a new profile created in this year, then they have a slightly longer time before deciding if they want to pay membership and be eligible for SCS.

Along with membership come perks like the ability to have real time tracking of where you stand in the SCS (already done but I do think it is reasonable to pay for this service and the logictics involved in managing it).

IF someone does not want the opportunity to play in SCS end of year event, then things would be the same as they ever were.

Wouldn't YOU rather have a shot at a much bigger pot?

I am not sure if you are being purposefully dense on the subject, it is not about the cash amount but rather the principle of forcing the hand of a select few people to pay for the national pot that have no interest in ever attending the event.

I think I am providing a very logical and plausible alternative that removes this bias against a select subgroup of competitors while at the same time likely growing that national prize pool exponentially. This alternative idea of annual membership is also very common among other yet similar amateur competitive sports.

um... The top 16 in each state are forced to pay for the national pot, IF they want to compete in the SCS. Oddly enough, many do not even appear to know this.

It really is quite simple.

I am not sure if you realize but I ran tons of event in the state, spending near 1k each of the past 2 years to help grow pinball on a LOCAL level. Big charity event each year, did FWTG to earn more money for charity, 2 events in my personal home, hauling games to many places, monthly events on location, etc... I am not concerned at all on what I spend to grow local pinball and I do not appreciate the insinuation. I try and do everything I can to support pinball on the local level, but I have ZERO desire to help support it on the national pay out level to the same 20 guys each year (more likely same 5 or 6 if we are being honest).

You are missing that I am not proposing any money be paid from people that don't make it into SCS for SCS.

I am proposing that IFPA should charge a nominal annual membership fee for the service they provide and think this is very fair to do. The should continue to provide the base service they already do for free but with membership comes eligibility for the state championship series, extra tracking incentives, cool members section of website for added charting, personal calendar of events, and other slick features.

The IFPA can do whatever they want with the thousands of dollars this annual membership fee brings in. I would propose they use it for expenses and to seed a much bigger prize pool for the national championship.

Would each of you be OK with paying an annual membership/ donation to IFPA so they can continue to grow the sport? Seems like the least you could do since they have been tracking many of your scores for free for years

I sure hope if he wins my $6.50 at nationals that he spends it on something better than budweiser.

I call that my $6.50 goes towards tips of the semantically clad women.

Sounds good. $100 side bet says you don't win if you want some of that action.

also, what is a G O B?

nevermind.. Good Ole Boys... Yeah that pretty much sums it up.

lol

come on multiple thumbs down from all you chubby chasin panty sniffers for this. Tilt the post (like I did for adult content), but go find something more useful for that thumb of yours.

Can't believe some of you even sent me harassing PMs for posting a picture of some scantily clad women...

It was a joke about what sort of cocktail waitresses you could higher for the SCS for 10 bucks.

Lighten up francis. Just some fine looking ladies in swimsuits.

Yancy, I am genuinely not trolling at all.

I attempted to have a good conversation about the merits of different options and possible ways to account for the desires of various people/groups and constraints when continuing to grow the 'sport' we all enjoy as a sub part of this pinball hobby. By and large nobody besides Josh even had a discussion and shared anything of value.

Lots of the same people that come into all competitive threads on pinside and just yell "BLAAARGG that is how it is and if you don't like it then tough crap" or you get guys like Justfury that hands out the thumbs but can't even join the conversation, which is more trolling than anything IMO. We all have passion for competitive pinball and a desire to make it better. I typically align with a desire for more growth on the front end and what I percieve as fairness for the entry level and mid-range player. Quite a few others are elite players and are squarely alligned in their POV with that camp of thought. I do not think competitive pinball is big enough to have competing forces for growth of the sport and for the most part I like everything the IFPA has and continues to do, but would like to see a little more ongoing discussion and actual progression which thinks a bit more about the new and getting more active players.

We all share the same passion just with different opinons on how to continue to progress it. I obviously put a lot of energy into supporting competitive pinball and would like to know that there is some amount of give and take. I actually think in the long run lots of good comes out of these discussions for those that really care and continue to think about and incorporate small changes each year. I may be vocal on one side of things but in the long run I see small positive changes that have come from this.

You may not like my tact (or lack of it), but if we all want to progress the sport and competitive pinball then the best solution typically comes from lots of people willing to suggest alternatives and hash it out over time.

It is pretty easy to hand out some thumbs up/down or just yell "blarrggh", but if people really care then I would like to see a bit more constructive and critical thought about ways to get it all done as the sport continues to grow. Share those thoughts instead of just trolling as a odd lurker that just thumbs up down with NOTHING actual positive you are adding to the discussion. (patiently awaiting the thumbs down from Justfury).

yup, very constructive point of view...

I can see what you are saying and that is a very valid point. Thanks for sharing the extent of your opinion on the topic. A+ for you.

good points Tim.

I unfortunately do not want to fracture the local player group and am unsure if there is a way to try and grow this on the local/state level without damaging the foundation already laid by using the current best tool available and forcing a decision. As we have talked before and I have learned pinball is far too small of a sport currently to have too many competing interests.

I have some ideas and think maybe the best idea is not forcing a decision but simply providing a better alternative for a few key thing. I have some ideas but still need to vet them out. Maybe the next time we meet up I can bounce a few things off you as you always have a good POV.

I think you have neglected to even read the discussion and are merely trolling for a response mr memese.

Noone suggested charging thousands of players to offset my play in the SCS. That would be silly and unfair for them, similar to charging SCS players to avoid you and your 5 friends from paying into the nationals. Really??

I suggested that if the IFPA wants to bring in more money to seed a national prize pool then they should opt to upcharge for tracking services and eligibility for premier events. This is common practice in many similar sports. I know a few bowlers were talking on saturday about how they happily pay in annual dues to some bowling organzation that tracks league scores and provides them some member benefits.

Isn't it about time that the IFPA starts collecting a small fee for the service they provide?
Assuming they did this then they would likely earn even more money for nationals than they currently do. Talk about building a premier event and a huge prize pool. If the top thousand people currently in the IFPA each paid $10 annual dues then you have already trippled the prize pool.

We are discussing SCS and IFPA Nationals.

PAPA/Pinburgh are great events but not associated with this discussion at all.

good points Flynn.

I will still play in the SCS this year since I already committed to do so.
I will just hope that whomever wins WI opts to attend Vegas so my $6.25 goes to good use on some proper tips to hot cocktail waitresses in Vegas.

After talking with the locals I think there is a good chance/desire to hold a REAL WI state championship event for 2015 that suits the desires to have a capstone event for the state each year that does not funnel any seed money into anything else. Keep the prizes to the event and try to continue growing on the local level.

Something for maybe the top 24 in WI to have a fun day of competition and crown the real WI champ each year. I think extending to top 24 for that sort of event would be a good thing to help continue building the local community. Would be cool to also do it in Jan instead of waiting all the way to Feb, more immediate would be cool.

Josh, if I were to make such an event fro this year, is it allowed to use current/end of year (2015) state rank to fill the field for such an event like SCS does or is that limited to SCS championship?

You are the only one calling names now and throwing out personal attacks. Not once have I pointed at a specific person and called them an idiot, like you have done just now.

I will say that when others have an ongoing conversation, you leave for a few days without comment, the discussion comes to a culmination and some ideas are hashed out, and you are the guy that comes back at the end to throw out some personal attacks and name calling it clearly shows your character very well.

At the same time, that picture was on topic as people were discussing hiring cocktail waitresses to serve drinks at WI SCS. I thought that was an accurate representation of the attractive females that we may have hired to serve us drinks with little umbrellas. I am sorry if you took offense to it, but I think those are some beautifully confident ladies. It was a joke, lighten up a little. I was not trying to objectify women.

I have a feeling if you had actually read and participated in the thread instead of just coming back in to hurl personal attacks at select points that you would know this is far from an anti-IFPA event I am suggesting. I have said multiple times that I like most of what the IFPA does and how it continues to make small improvements. My position is not anit-IFPA but rather that there are small tweaks that could improve the current system to better for all, most notably in the IFPA SCS processes. This real state WI championship would not be anti anything, but rather pro-WI pinball. I said this would be an additional event and not something set up in opposition or forcing players to choose between the events as I do not think that is good for the local players or competitive pinball. Even people like you, would be allowed to attend, assuming you qualify.

As I am currently forced to pay seeding money to the national event in order to play in the WI IFPA SCS I feel it is acceptable to deem this my membership and utilize the currently public IFPA tracking information. In conjunction, if I run a real state championship event, then it only seems logical to use the best publicly provided tracking available >> IFPA provides an amazing and free service of public tracking and weighting of events already and no reason to invent something new. If they opt to charge the public for access to this information, then I would be happy to support that effort.

Josh, does the IFPA have issue with me using the publicly available data to help set up any event that promotes more pinball?

Since I would be running the event I have to make choices. Given other constraints I have found that bigger does not always equal better and often you can quickly diluet the quality of an event when getting too many people. I of course have already reached out to the core player base in my area and talk to them on a regular basis about what sort of things they enjoy or do not enjoy. I would continue to cater and change the event based on the feedback of those that are in the community it serves. My gut tells me that year 1 would be best if limited to a specific number of players using a good criterion for fielding the base of local players >> maybe something like top 24 player in WI events (using current SCS tracking) that have played in at least 3 regular occurring monthly WI events in 2015 (lots of these available to the player base with 3 leagues in the state now and 5 location monthlies). This allows everyone the opportunity to play and helps promote more WI based play which is a central goal.

cool. Currently thinking something like top 24 based on WI event points earned with the additional criterion that you must have played in 3? monthlies (any combination of league events or on location monthly events). I assume that fits the allowing of "anyone" rule for being deemed open?

Thanks again for all you do to track and grow pinball. I hope you see that just because we have different POV, we both still care about growth of the sport and pinball so we share that commonality. My focus just happens to be on the farm league

Good point. I was thinking of the added criterion as a way to promote local monthly play. I would want the real WI state championship to be geared towards those playing on a more regular basis in the state rather than just a few big events (i.e. we already have big events that are dominated by a few that only have limited support of the local community). I think you are right that the new IFPA 2015 point structure will largely take care of this anyway. It is hard to figure out what that right balance is, but it may already have been accomplished with the new IFPA points???

Not a fan of inverse seeding Tom? What would you like to see?

I actually think I will be hosting both the IFPA SCS next year and now maybe an additional event, I think we can drop the 'real' and just term it "The WI State Pinball Championship".

Still plenty of time to decide

yeah, it is really tough to find that happy medium between promoting getting out and supporting while also not dissuading those that come drop bombs from participating at all...

I was thinking the added criterion of a small amount of monthlies as these provide a different format than the big events and also work to promote more competitiev pinball. I think there are 5 monthlies each month plus 3 leagues most months in WI so almost anyone should be able to get out to a handful of monthies. With 60ish public location monthlies in a year, a criterion to have attended a few of these may do a nice job of promoting without being completely impossible for a busy guy to get out to a local event 3 times in the year.

If I look at 2014 rankings for WI, I think the top 40 WI players living in WI all met this criterion and at the same time not a single person that only travels to WI for the few big events would fit the criterion. Granted, life changes and changes in league play would likely impact a few that may need to put in a little effort to get out to a couple monthlies?

It is a tough balance to find what will work to serve the main motives of the WI player base.

Can't beat that. You can do your laundry while you play!

Hey Tom, Can I bring a load of whites to do at your house next month? That way after I get beat in the first round I still feel like it was a productive day

Your post does not even deem a response but I wanted to note that I removed the image I posted earlier as the OP of this thread nicely contacted me and requested it. For those that are paying attention it was well within the TOS of the site and showed clothed woman. I tilted it because that is what you are supposed to do when you post something that is adult content.

I do like that you decided to grab a history of posts from past threads and take them completely out of context to try and prove a point. I like that about you. You have a real creepy side that makes you special. You are the only one that has violated TOS and called me an idiot and a direct personal attack. You know have also quoted out of context and modified my posts which is also against pinside TOS. If you want to go internet hero again and protect pinside then you should probably spend your effort reporting yourself to the moderation team rather than stalking my internet history (some of those posts are more that 2 years old; you really went full stalker on this one).

you may also want to work on your reading. If you read every post in the thread, you must have missed this one...

Agreed. I will leave good enough alone and no longer try to change the ifpa scs.

As for bowen, he is the one that seems to be getting his rocks off by attacking me.

What did you need to do for it is the real question...

16th out of a couple hundred just trying to make the event is something to be proud of for many.

Good luck to all. Have fun

I made it the 2hr ride home before first round even got done, so that tells you how bad I did, LOL.

Good times as always. At least I have good company with you as a first round loser Ken (12th in WI still feels alright to me).

Ken, do you have the link to the backalope thing Tom is using so I can tune in throughout the day?
edit > nevermind, found it

http://live.brackelope.com/t/pm5gi/

thanks for the hard work. It is appreciated.